Better Living Through Agony Saturday, November 10, 2012 Sanity and Morality - 3/5/11 republicationI recently ready "Heart of Scars" by Brian P. Easton. I highly recommend both of the books in the series; When the Autumn Moon is Bright (An Autobiography of a Werewolf Hunter) and Heart of Scars. The books themselves are not relevant to this post, but what the main character, Sylvester, says in one part of "Heart of Scars" is. At one point, Sylvester muses over his sanity and consequently his morality. He concludes that if you have the mental capacity to question your sanity, then you are (for all intensive purposes) sane. He then wonders whether or not the same is true of morality. This is a very minor part of the plot, but I found it very thought provoking. So the question is: "If questioning your sanity declares you sane, does questioning your morality declare you moral?" There are a few thing we need to consider first. Is the first statement true? Does questioning your sanity declare you sane? In a very specific sense it could be argued that it does not, as there is a fine line between genius and insanity as they say. However, in a general sense, and for the purpose of this discussion, I think it does hold true. If you are mentally and cognitively capable of arranging a logical argument in your head whether you are mentally sound (sane) or not, then decisively it is more likely that you are indeed sane than it is that you are insane. I am aware that there may be many people suffering from mental illnesses who can arrange arguments for their sanity when clearly (to outsiders) they are not. I think it could be argued that though their arguments may be flawed, in accordance to what their brain declares to be rational, their argument is flawless. My greatest sympathy goes out to these people who can function on their own but by the bounds of the law are condemned to forever rely on the assistance of others. However, excuse me for getting a bit off topic. In the Aristotelian sense of the question, yes, the ability to argue over whether you are sane or insane does vindicate your sanity. In a more platonic and universal sense the answer may be "no" but for the vast majority of situations to be considered, the answer is "yes." Now on to the real question. The first thing that must be noticed is that in the question of sanity, there were only two possible answers. Either you were sane or insane, there was no "half-sane" option. While this may lead to some ambiguity in the above paragraph, it becomes a matter of the glass being half empty or half full. Sanity is partially defined by the ability to logically reason and insane is to be of a not sound mind. This means that even if we are as insane as we are sane, the tie goes to the side of sanity. When arguing over the same question only with morality instead of sanity, there are three options involved. They are; moral, immoral, and amoral. While I am skeptical of anyone who claims to be 100% amoral ( much like true stoics or nihilists) the side is at least possible in theory if not in practicality. Kant said that we do as we are, in a much different light Nietzsche said that we are as we do. These two philosophical greats of course lead us to very different directions when discerning what is moral or not, what is good and what is evil. However, this is not a blog on the thought of Nietzsche or Kant, but a blog on my thoughts. So, if you were to ask me the question; "Does questioning your morality declare you moral?", my answer would be "yes." I would answer the question yes, for the following reasons. Doubt or questioning itself is not directly indicative of morality. Questioning morality is, however, a byproduct of guilt. This immediately eliminates the possibility of questioning your morality declaring that you are amoral. If you are amoral and feeling guilt, then you were not truly amoral in the first place. The remaining choices are immoral and moral. In order for our questioning to declare us immoral, it would have to be proven that there is an ethical violation in asking questions. Certainly, not asking any questions (due to the vast potential for abuse and malicious intent) would be unethical. Therefore, by default, asking questions is not immoral. This leads to my next point. Being moral does not always indicate doing the "right thing." The "right thing" can mean very different things depending on the slightest religious, cultural, environmental, essential, or educational context that place specific conditions on such an argument. It is simple enough and accurate enough to establish that to be moral is to question whether something is right or not much more than it is to say that to be moral is to do the right thing. In the conclusion of my reasoning listed above: "if questioning your sanity declares you sane, then questioning your morality does declare you moral." Consequently if you were to ask Kant this question, I believe he would have come to the same answer. If we are as we do, what we are doing is questioning right and wrong, questioning right and wrong is moral, thus we are moral. For Nietzsche, if we do as we are, then we are uncertain if we are moral, uncertainty does not equal immorality, uncertainty may mean amorality, questioning is indicative of concern, concern over morality cannot lead to amorality, therefore we are uncertain of right and wrong thus we question right and wrong and may be categorized as moral. What a strange irony that Kant and Nietzsche would actually come to the same answer (though through different means) on something as controversial as moral behavior.

*Originally published in "Lies of Lions" on 3/5/11. This is a republication in its original, unedited state. The contents of this post may not reflect my current philosophical and personal interests and viewpoints. Nevertheless, it should prove to be quite intellectually inquisitive